The Human Genome Project generated huge expectations that it would revolutionise the treatment of illness and disease and huge commercial opportunities for the development of drugs . The belief that this would dramatically change our society eventually persuaded the US government to spend around $3billion on the project.
It also led to a fierce battle between this government-funded project and a private company called Celera that aimed to complete the task first using cheaper, more powerful sequencing techniques.
This battle led to a kind of virtuous circle which reinforced investors’ belief in the potential benefits and caused the scientists themselves to redouble their efforts.
But it also deflected attention from the huge uncertainties about the project. The fear, more or less ignored, was that the benefits would not be as great as imagined.
These fears have more or less come to pass. “Having the complete gene set on the table, the knowledge of the genetic map and sequence is now considered by experts to be only a starting point for future research in biology and medicine,” says Gisler and co.
This is an example of the inherent error in deterministic, science-based materialistic philosophy. Locating a single point of change in a process by using a reductionistic process of discovery does not, in fact, yield the “cause” of the final result. All of the elements may be material, yet the end is not determined by any single element or even by any clearly defined interaction of multiple elements.
What use is determinism without predictability? This is really the same problem faced by the Calvinists. Who cares if everything is determined by some process or by God, if I cannot harness that process technologically or God does not tell me exactly what will happen?
Sure, there are technologies that have come out of genomic research. The problem is that it has not rehabilitated eugenics and it has not made evolution observable. Evolutionary psychology is still just as inane as ever. A mutated fruit fly is still a fruit fly. The “next step in our evolution” is still just a fantasy of debased, misanthropic totalitarians.
Now, here is a link to one of those “evolutionary experts” that I constantly run across:
Like most of those with some scientific background, he shows a subtle contempt for the masses of scientifically illiterate Americans who mindlessly parrot evolutionary doctrine . . . except, of course, that he blames their ignorance on the creationists, who are not allowed to teach science, which he thinks they would lie about anyway. He is certain of the fact of evolution as a materially discoverable process, although he doesn’t know what the mechanism is or if that mechanism will ever be discovered. He explicitly contradicts scientific atheism and affirms Intelligent Design, like most scientists. He’s very concerned that everyone must agree with the science orthodoxy in order to avoid some unspecified social catastrophe.
After years of reading this sort of defense for evolutionary theory, I have come to the conclusion that creation science as a curriculum and a ministry is pointless. The only purpose of creation science is apparently to argue with the scientific atheists and evangelize the fickle, illiterate general public. But guys like Leipzig also argue against the scientific atheists and against evolutionary myths, while claiming all the time that science is under siege from the lying, manipulative creation scientists. It’s a big political game that has nothing to do with science or salvation.